Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1887-09-23
w1NDHAM COUNTY COURT

afternoon, made their report and were dis
charged. Thirteen Of the "true bills" of
indictment prosecuted by them have been
entered upon the docket and are as follows
state VS. Ransom Covey for assault and bat
terry State VS.. Frank Stowe for an AS
sault with intent to commit rape State VS..
Rcvillo Howard for an assault with intent To
kill State vs.. Geo. I. Shanks for criminal
libel State VS.. j. F. Bacon and State VS.
VIM. Brown for breaking Jail State VS..
Frank W Stowe for violation of insurance
laws: State vs.. Arthur Brenenstahl for
larceny State vs.. Charles Day, two indict
mcuts for larceny State VS. Horace Blanch-
ard, State vs.. Emery Knowlton, State VS..
Kendall p. Ames and Manly l.. Burr. and
State vs.. ID. f. Taylor for liquor selling.
I'm the last named case the respondent came
into court on Tuesday and plead guilty to
five first offences and was fined 500 and
81 - costs
The first civil case tried by jury was that
of Lrniuci Smith dnd iUjte rs the Nid11y1
Fire Insurance Cot was an action on
policy of insurance upon the plaintiffs
dwelling house and personal property there
ina situated in Dover Centre and which was
destroyed 10y fire oct. 4, 1886. The evil
deuce tended to show that on the l4th of
july, 1856, the husband, for and in behalf
of the wife, who was the owner of the
property, made an application for insurance
IN the defendant company through h. A.
Willard, Jr., of Wilmington, who writes
applications for Messrs. Cudworth q Childs.
defendants agents in Brnttleboru Upon
this application Messrs. Cudworth q Chllds
wrote and issued to Mrs Smith a policy of
insurance in defendant company dated July
49, 1885, for $500 upon her dwelling house.
5000 upon the property therein, $500 upon
her barn and sheds, and $3.50 upon the pro
ducc therein. Early in the morning of Oct
!. lSSG Mr. Smith and their daughter started
from Dover and went to Brattleboro, leaving
Mrs Smith and son some IT. years old at
home his was on Monday. aud Mrs
smith had "A fire in her kitchen stove and
was ironing. About half-past eleven in
the forenoon it was discovered that the
house was ON fire, whereupon they gave the
alarm, and Mrs. Smith and her son, aided
b. the near neighbOrs, succeeded in saving
from the fire quantity of their household
goods but the dwelling house was com
pctely destroyed AS was also personal
property therein exceeding in value the
$500 insurance thereon. That notice of the
loss was Immediately given to the company,
and within IA few days thereafter Messrs.
Willard and Cudworth accompanied by II.
r. Turner, Esq, the general agent of the
defendants for New England, came to Dover
to adjust and settle the loss. A schedule of
the goods destroyed had been previously
prepared by the plaintiffs and was handed
To Mr. Turner. That between them they
settled upon the valuations Of the several
items that made up the schedule, and Mr.
Turner expressed himself as being satisfied
herewith. That plaintiffs offered to make
sworn statement as to the loss, but that
Mr.. Turner informed them that he was sat
lstied and he should not require such state
ment. Some ugly rumOrs were atioat t
the origin of the fire, and Mr.. Smith re
uuested Mr. Turner to take his own time
and investigate the same to his satisfaction
Upon this the said Turner, Cudworth ant
Willard left Dover, Mr.. Turner remarknl
that he should return in short time ant
settle the loss. Not hearing from Mr.
Turner, and having carefully read over tn,
conditions of the policy, Mr.. Smith went t,
BrattlehurO and saw Mr. Cudworth in hi
office within the 20 days after the fire, an,
asked him If IL wasn't necessary for plain
ti1s to make and forward to the compan,
sworn statement as to the loss. That Mr.
Cudworth informed him that he had alread,
done all that was necessary for him to do
and that no further statement was required
Relying upon these assurances the plaintiff
did not make and forward to the compan
the particular statement of the claimed los
sworn TO as is provided shall be done by tn
assured in the conditions which form par
of the policy or contract of insurance. Tn
defendant neglecting and refusing to pa
the loss, plaintiffs brought suit.
The evidence Of the defendant tended t
show that the fire was not an accidents
one that at the time the plaintiffs apple
for the insurance they represented that tn
property was free from all membranes
which said representation was material t
the risk-when in fact the real estate, il
Guiding the buildings, were heavily incur
bered by mortgage to the sister of MI
Smith. That the property covered wa
over-valued in the policy Of insurance, an
also that the plaintiffs did not furnish to tn
company at any time the particular state
ment of loss, sworn to by the assured, whic
the contract made obligatory upon the plain
ttis to furnish within 30 days after the fire
That this requirement never was waived
any agent or officer Of the company, and
fact no agent or officer of the company this
had to do with this insurance or the adjuS
ing of the loss had any authority SO TO dc
and of which the plaintiffs were well il
formed That the actual value of the hou'
to the assured was less than $500, tt
amount for which it was insured. That
the schedule of personal property destroye
there We're several articles not covered
the insurance, and certain others were LEI
in quantity and value than claimed by Il
plaintiffs That while there was some ev
dence which was sufficient TO excite suspl
ion as to its being an accidental fire, and
put the defendants upon an inquiry and II
vestgation into its origin, yet there WI
nothing shown, Of a tangible nature, col
Meeting either of the plaintiffs with Il
burning of their own buildings
The plaintiffs evidence also tended
show that the incumbrance by mortgage
Mr. Smiths sister was not an existing de
or claim upon the estate when the insuran
was effected. That although the mortgaI
had not been discharged of record, still Il
mortgage, some two years before the /
surance was negotiated, purposely, and WI
the intention of forgiving the debt OF h
brother, DESTROYED the note of $500, whl'
was originally given for borrowed none
That the MORTGAGE never informed n
brother that she had destroyed said note II
til the time she gave her testimony in cou
in this case Verdict for the plaintiffs
recover $S37 3D. Exceptions by the d
PENDANT Waterman Martin Tor q
plaintiffs. Haskns X Stoddard for the
PENDANT
Henry +. HundeH rs. Richard Dean,
dis.-Action, trespass for false imprlso
ment The plaintiffs evidence tended
show that while attending the agricultur
fair at Manchester, Vt, in the fall OF lSo
he was arrested without warrant by one
the defendants, who was chief of pole
and put into the Jail at Manchester, al
there kept from Thursday afternoon un
Saturday. when he was released without al
warrant having been issued against him
trial being had,
The evidence on the part OF the deleh
ants tended 10 show that the plaintiff al
his brother were in attendance upon sa
fair and were pcddling popcorn, cigars, al
whiskey in bottles which they carried roul
in their pockets and sold. That for the Vi
lation Of the law prohibiting the sale al
furnishing of Intoxicating liquors they we
both apprehended on the far ground a
placed in Jail to await their trial In
plaintiffs brother was charged by regul
complaint and warrant issued, to when
pleaded guilty Of selling, and was fined )
and costs. That the defendants not bel
able to procure any evidence against plal
tiff at that time released him from custod
This evidence now tended to show I'll
plaintiff and his brother We're partners
the selling and furnishing liquor at til
time.
Verdict for plaintiff S3S damages.
Waterman K Martin for plaintiff, Gu
worth and G. b. Eddy for defendants,
Ira Smith Is. valley Raiirodd ComPa.
Action to recover damages for cattle XIII
on defendants railroad track in WestmlI
ter. 1t appeared that the pantlii mr.
Jobn G Richardson to keep at hay during
winter Of 1886, and until ready to turn
grass. several head of young cattle, IN
we're to run in the yard and under the la